Communities

IET Communities provide like-minded people with opportunities to share ideas, collaborate, learn and network. With more than 100 Local and Technical Networks around the world, you can feel confident of finding a community that suits your interests.

I think that the same view applies to a cover up. There would have to be a political will for a cover up, but there would also have to be a lot of clever science and engineering to convince other technologically capable observers (especially the Russians) that these signals and images were comming from the moon.

Best regards

Roger

But they had clever science and engineering, insomuch that they, (John Wayne, Frank Sinatra et al), could get to moon. I would hazard a guess that it would be a heck of a lot easier to make a dodgy film in the Nevada desert than it would be getting to the moon; the latter, being real clever science and engineering!

I've just been looking at the moon on Google Earth and was watching some of the you tube video links of when the landed on the moon and erected, (a very flappy), US flag. I couldn't help but notice the amount of sand/dust which they kicked up and which returned to the moon's surface very quickly, as if gravity had assisted. Can someone explain to me ho this is possible? (Sorry, my O level Physics is a bit rusty)

The Moon has gravity, but this is less than the Earth's gravity (1/6th?).
If you produce a dust cloud on the Earth the dust is pulled back down by gravity but the motion is resisted by the atmosphere (dust particles collide with air molecules, Brownian motion and all that). On the Moon there is a lower force of gravity to pull the dust particles back to the surface but there is almost no atmosphere to resist this motion so it is not unreasonable that dust clouds could settle in similar times on the Earth and on the Moon.

That's the second time I've been called a troll on the forums, so it must be true. Nevertheless this troll would like to know what maths you allude to. So, if you wouldn't mind, let the world see the hard maths please. You made the statement, now qualify it. We're all debating here. We all have opinions here. I'm just trying to think what the hard maths might have been; 3D vectoring, fractal geometry, Bayesian image processing...........or perhaps it was just slide rule maths with a more than a little hope.

Jake. I'm so very disappointed that you have decided to keep the 'hard maths' to yourself. I feel sure that the engineering community would be better for it, had you decided to publish the 'hard maths'.

Call me cynical, but perhaps said hard maths weren't that hard afterall and the slide rule did come into play; not that I'm criticising the good old slide rule. It does logs n that.

Rule No. 14 of the engineering community at large - don't make claims you can't substantiate.

Rule No. 14A of the engineering community at large - debate, argue criticise and opine, but never ever get personal. You could end up in very deep water.

Purely in the interest of bringing this rather fruitless part of the discussion to an end (ok, I am an optimist) Jake's posting was:

Originally posted by: jakegreenlandThe link does indeed provide subjectivity [well the second one at least, the first provides hard maths which you can reproduce yourself along with referenced publications] but the subjectivity it provides should point you to the correct branches of science you can investigate to prove or disprove it for yourself.

And no, I don't intend to follow up the maths and do it myself because a) it's sunny, b) life's too short and c) I know enough people who were involved in the space program to not see any point in following this further. Although it is annoying to see their hard work and excellent engineering being dismissed as a hoax, but I'll let those involved fight their own battles (although again I suspect "life's too short" will come into effect from their part as well).

Purely in the interest of bringing this rather fruitless part of the discussion to an end (ok, I am an optimist) Jake's posting was:

Originally posted by: jakegreenland

The link does indeed provide subjectivity [well the second one at least, the first provides hard maths which you can reproduce yourself along with referenced publications] but the subjectivity it provides should point you to the correct branches of science you can investigate to prove or disprove it for yourself.

And no, I don't intend to follow up the maths and do it myself because a) it's sunny, b) life's too short and c) I know enough people who were involved in the space program to not see any point in following this further. Although it is annoying to see their hard work and excellent engineering being dismissed as a hoax, but I'll let those involved fight their own battles (although again I suspect "life's too short" will come into effect from their part as well).

Andy, the link doesn't give us a good look at those hard maths. Ok it has in at one 9x3=27 astronauts and I admit, I was never any good at the nine times table, but I was hoping to see far more than this.

A Professional Engineer, making claims needs to be able to substantiate them. I'm still waiting for said hard maths to filter through.

I've said this on another thread you chased me over on already so I'll repeat it here.

I am uninterested in what you think, who you are or what you think of me. Basically I don't care and am uninterested in arguing with you any furthur on the matter. If you wish to attempt to continue and elucidate a response then feel free - you won't be getting one.

I've said this on another thread you chased me over on already so I'll repeat it here.

I am uninterested in what you think, who you are or what you think of me. Basically I don't care and am uninterested in arguing with you any furthur on the matter. If you wish to attempt to continue and elucidate a response then feel free - you won't be getting one.

Just a final say on the matter. Make sure you know what your words mean and how to use them, before you choose to do so on the forum. .